Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare not read-only, not open-world, and not idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: LLM-based extraction, contradiction detection, ARI computation, cryptographic sealing, returned artifact_id, and the confidence-tier effect of behavioral logs. It does not cover cost, latency, or overwrite semantics, so it is not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler: first states the transformation, then the processing steps, then the return value, then the optional input effect. Every sentence carries operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex mutation tool with an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers the key workflow and output linkage. Minor omissions—such as cost, latency, or explicit overwrite/idempotency behavior—are not fatal because annotations and schema cover much of the contract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains name, organization, documents, domain, api_key, and behavioral_logs. The description adds conceptual value for behavioral_logs (behavioral evidence layer / CERTIFIED tier) but little for the other parameters; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Convert ... policy documents into a sealed NOMOS governance artifact') and enumerates the processing steps: rule extraction, contradiction detection, ARI scoring, and sealing. It also names the downstream sibling verify_decision, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from detect_contradictions despite the overlap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides implied usage context—use it to produce an artifact_id for verify_decision, and optionally supply behavioral logs to reach CERTIFIED tier—but gives no explicit when-to-use versus detect_contradictions or ask_authority, nor when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.